That's only for the in-chain history. To actually be able to trust that the NFT is what it's represented as, you also need outside third-parties. For example, many artists are having to deal with NFTs fraudulently claiming to represent their work or benefit the artist, which is not something you can validate using only information on the blockchain.
Once you have a way to confirm the authenticity of the NFT, you also don't need the blockchain because the actual trust is coming from the artist's own statement.
With NFTs, the purchase is even stronger than a verbal agreement since the 'legal contract' is the agreement to sell the NFT as a specified price in digital currency. Once again, ownership doesn't have to mean owning the intellectual property, with an NFT you 'own' the combination of bytes that you purchased, even if you don't have exclusive rights to those bytes and even if the original seller can keep making more of the exact same thing you purchased. It's like how you might 'own' a pair of sneakers - chances are those sneakers weren't produced for your exclusive use and tens of thousands of people also own a pair that looks just like yours, but you have every right to sell your pair and transfer ownership to someone else.
Can't imagine why not. Can't at all. Nope.
The NFT is the hyperlink, not what it links to.
The point of the NFT technology is to keep record of who a notary was. "So and so said this link is authentic, per their own definition of authentic." Whether that notary is important is for humans to decide. A counterfeiter can be the notary, and if people believe in them, then they create some value. Just as some art counterfeits have their own intrinsic value for whatever reason.
PGP had the same problem: the web of trust didn’t scale well outside of existing communities – and where people signed keys for strangers, they also relied on trusted third parties (driver’s license, student ID, etc.) to establish that.